Try this: we both have characters in an established adventuring party. Within the party there's a long history of your character and mine being close friends (we're both front-line warriors), meanwhile neither of us have any time for wizard character C and would prefer he not be in the group. So, now the party's in a rolling open-field battle with a bunch of tougher-than-expected foes and aren't doing very well. Character C in particular is overwhelmed, while you look to be holding your own and I've just freed myself up to join another fight.
Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C whose spells, if free to cast them, could quickly turn the tide.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up, confident that between us we can mop this up, and let character C sink or swim on his own. We can always find another wizard.
Now, to add in the missing-info aspect: there's also a rogue character D in the party, a decent sort. In this battle D is also getting snowed under, only from my position on the field my character can't see this due to some obstacle or other. I-as-player, however, can look at the minis on the grid and see that D is toast unless someone bails him out.
So now we have three options:
Tactically-best choice: I go and bail out character C.
In-character choice: I come and help free you up and let character C sink or swim on his own.
Metagame-driven choice: I go and bail out character D.
Excellent and thorough example, thank you.
Ok, so first of all, I would argue that bailing out character C is just as valid a character-driven choice as helping free me up. You can certainly say that you have a closer bond with my character and don’t much care for what happens to character C. But you could just as well say that your character’s bond with mine is such that you understand my capabilities and know that I can handle myself. Perhaps even that you would not wish to rob me of the glory of defeating these foes on my own, and the wizard might owe you if you save him. Now, either are valid options, and as the person portraying your character, it is up to you to decide which is the option your character would take. That decision is what, for me, roleplaying is all about, and I would consider trying to eliminate such moments to be a terrible design goal. You’d be actively trying to eliminate the most fun part of the game.
As for if saving character D is “metagaming” or not, that is a question of the social contract of the group. At my table, it is assumed that the characters are cohesive enough unit to be able to effectively communicate what is going on around their part of the battlefield to each other, even if they can’t directly see it. So at my table, going to save the rogue would be fine, under the assumption that he was either able to express his need of aid, or you noticed his absence and thought it suspicious, or something. Not all tables would play it that way, however, and I’ll grant that in this example, we are playing at a table where if your character can’t directly observe what’s happening to the rogue, they don’t know and can’t act on that out of character information. In that case, that would not be a valid roleplaying choice.
Fair enough, but kind of self-defeating when discussing comparables between all 5 (actually 6 if 0e counts) editions.
I mean, that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the design philosophy behind 5e, and whether or not providing the players with lots of mechanical options goes against it.
Hmmm...we'll have a hard time finding common ground on this one, methinks.
Personally, I want level-up to be as simple and straightforward as possible - roll h.p., gain whatever locked-in abilities the new level gives me, and carry on. I also prefer initial char-gen to be as simple as possible, simple enough that it can be done on the fly during a session by someone who's just lost a character and has an upcoming opportunity to bring in a replacement. If it takes longer than half an hour, including spell selection and mundane equipment loading, that's too long.
Sure, that’s fair. I prefer character generation to be quick and easy as well, particularly at 1st level. I’m personally less concerned with the speed of generating higher-level characters, but I can empathize with the desire to keep that quick too. Fortunately, the nice thing about options is that they are optional. 5e’s approach to starting equipment provides a good model for how this can be done. If you want to get your starting equipment figured out as quickly as possible, you just take the stuff recommended in the “quick build” for your class. If you want a little more customization but still to keep it quick and easy, you take the starting equipment package for your class, making a few simple choices like “explorer’s pack or dungeoneer’s pack.” If you want as much flexibility as possible and don’t mind it taking longer, take the starting gold and buy your equipment a-la-carte. The DM of course has the power to restrict options and/or provide new ones. This same philosophy could be applied to, say, class features, instead of equipment. Maybe offer a subclass with all fixed abilities for those who don’t want to pick and choose. Or a few. Just also offer options with a lot of customizability for those who like it.
Because they're bad for the game, perhaps?
I don’t agree with that. You and I will probably never agree on that.
